Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42525414›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Dense Breast Legislation and Supplemental Breast Imaging Among Women Undergoing Mammography.

Dong-Won Kang, Alison Chetlen, Shouhao Zhou, Li Wang, Douglas Leslie, Chan Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dong-Won KangCollege of Pharmacy, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Alison ChetlenDepartment of Radiology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Shouhao ZhouDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Li WangDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Douglas LeslieDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Chan ShenDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: State-level dense breast legislation aims to increase awareness of breast density and promote supplemental imaging, yet the association of specific legislation type with imaging use remains unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the differential association of dense breast notification and insurance coverage laws with supplemental imaging use and to assess how specific legislative features are associated with imaging use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, quasi-experimental cohort study used data from the MarketScan database, one of the largest national administrative claims databases in the US, from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2019. A total of 12.6 million women aged 40 to 64 years undergoing screening mammography with continuous insurance enrollment for at least 6 months after the index screening mammography were followed up for up to 6 months after the screening mammography. Data were analyzed from January to July 2025. Intervention: Dense breast legislation, including notification and insurance coverage laws. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of supplemental ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 months of screening mammography. Multivariable logistic regression with an extended difference-in-differences design was used to assess within-state changes over time, leveraging variation in the timing of policy adoption across states. Results: Of 12 555 082 women (mean [SD] age, 51.3 [6.9] years) undergoing mammography, 9.0% received supplemental ultrasonography and 0.6% received supplemental MRI. Notification mandates were associated with higher use of ultrasonography (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) and MRI (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12). Insurance coverage was associated with higher odds of supplemental ultrasonography use (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.86-1.90). Among states with notification mandates, including information on supplemental screening (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 2.81-2.86) and targeting notification only to women with dense breasts (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.33) were both associated with higher odds of ultrasonography use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of women undergoing mammography, both dense breast notification and insurance coverage laws were associated with increased use of supplemental ultrasonography, with greater odds observed for insurance mandates. Specific legislative features, particularly targeted notification and inclusion of supplemental screening information, were also associated with increased use of supplemental ultrasonography. Further studies covering wider populations and integrating claims data with clinical registries, imaging reports, or electronic health records are needed to better delineate the association between dense breast legislation and supplemental screening behavior.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsInsurance CoverageMammographyAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42525414
PMCPMC13421250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.